355 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Sentox6 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Calling it a Human-led Human Council isn't even redundant, because there could be other types of councils that could be human-led (the dominated nominally multi-racial council), whereas it is possible for a exclusive group to be dominated and led by an excluded faction: occupational authorities and nominal national regimes. A Human-led Human council confirms that, as well as being composed of humans, it is also led by humans and not by an external force (or rather, not an alien external force).

Turn off your PC, and enter into politics.

This is obfuscation at a professional level.

If you equate distinction with obfuscation, you're being simple minded.

There are a lot of groups in which composition doesn't equate to where the leadership remains. Pretty much every case of cooperation between distinct organizations is like this. In Afghanistan, for example there are American forces that act under American leadership and American rules of conflict one day, and then the next day on the next mission they are part of a NATO mission, with NATO commanders and NATO rules of engagement.

The troops themselves are American, composed of Americans, but who leads them around is different and does matter to how they're allowed to fight and conduct themselves. American-led American forces, or NATO-led American forces, is a distinction that matters.

[jbblue05]

Schneidend wrote...

If I am correct you originally responded to my question

Why would Shepard distance him/herself from the Alliance?

So why do you keep discussing what you personally did.?
Shepard's becoming a spectre was to show how capable the Aliance is am I right?

So why would Shepard want to distance himself from the Alliance?

The only way to do this is to be public about your views on the Alliance and its role with the Citadel races.and Council races

If Shepard does their job behind closed doors like a spectre is suppose to, Shepard won't show favortism either to the Alliance or the Council.

So if you want to distance yourself from the Alliance you have to go out of your way to do so. 

[Ieldra]

The problem is this: so far, it appears that the Paragons get good plot endings while the Renegades get bad ones. That's not how it should be. I'd like it to be like this:

(1) Paragon and Renegade outcomes should be balanced regarding the big picture. It's not enough that the Renegades get small benefits like an upgrade or a few enemies less and the Paragons all the good main plot outcomes.

(2) It should be possible to take the Renegade options in most major main plot decisions and still get a "non-evil" ending. And it should be possible to take Paragon options in most major main plot decisions and still get an "evil" ending. Bad endings should be tied to very specific decisions or combinations of such.

For instance: if, in the end Renegade decisions will lead to an Evil Human Empire in TIM's spirit, instead of a human-dominated but reasonably beneficial political structure, while the result of Paragon decisions will be a peaceful and co-operative galaxy instead of the also possible degenerate and initiave-less status quo controlled by the old Council, then I say the story will have favored Paragons and portrayed Renegade as evil. I don't want that.

Most particularly, I do not want the game to tell me that the decisions I made for pragmatic reasons were evil. That, at the bottom of it, is what this is about.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2011 - 03:48 .

[Xilizhra]

But... the degenerate/initiativeless status quo (that I don't completely agree really existed) is already over. The Council is forced to include humans no matter what happens; things are most definitely changing. And if you read Cerberus Daily News... the galaxy doesn't look stagnant to me at all, it looks bright and vibrant.

[Ieldra]

I reserve judgment until I see the endings of ME3. So far, none of the consequences of any main plot decision have yet fully manifested.

And I didn't say the galaxy looks stagnant. I say that if there are bad endings in ME3, they should not be tied to Renegade decisions while the good endings are tied to Paragon decisions. If there are bad endings, Paragons should be just as likely to get them, and gave an example of what a "bad Paragon ending" could look like.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2011 - 04:11 .

[Pro_Consul]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Most particularly, I do not want the game to tell me that the decisions I made for pragmatic reasons were evil. That, at the bottom of it, is what this is about.

Bioware has been struggling with this exact issue for a long time. Get on the Way Back Machine to KoTOR and look at how most of the "dark" side choices were merely gratuitous and often stupidly murderous. KoTOR2, they fight with the same issue but show that they realize its a problem. DA:O, they seem to try to sidestep most of the issue altogether, but still cannot completely avoid it. Apparently its been a pretty serious challenge for them. I suspect they should turn over all responsibility for this portion of the writing burden to Karpyshyn, since in his SW novels he seems to have found a realistic, workable balance on this.